Sunday, August 17, 2008

No problems on this blog

Comments (23)

The Fairness Doctrine might make sense for broadcasters using public airwaves because there are only a small number of frequencies available. But to apply the Fairness Doctrine to individual blogs makes absolutely no sense to me. (On the other hand, if Comcast started restricting access to blogs based on their political position, that would probably merit regulation.)

It's not necessary to always follow the fiction that there are two reasonable sides to every issue. I am fond of the best of the blogosphere because there I can find a well argued position that does not pretend to be "balanced." I can go to the talking heads screaming at each other on CNN for "balanced."

The Fairness Doctrine has never made sense to me, primarily because it doesn't guarantee anything like fairness. I have no desire to force the news departments at ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and all their local affiliates to balance their 24/7/365 ultra-liberal news coverage any more than I want to see Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk balance their 15 hours a week of ultra-conservative editorial comment. Each is easily recognizable and hopefully people will continue to vote with their feet.

"ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and ... their 24/7/365 ultra-liberal news" -- y'know, that is just sick slop that is not going to splash any more. LIARS: come pick up your chatty-bratty puppet -- somebody pulled the string and it got stuck on an old recording. Here, Voice-stuck-in-the-bubblePast, some actual factual news to you, everyone else saw the memo years ago. (I recommend the MediaMatters search result.) I understand your pain, LIARS programmed the lie again, multiple times a day, last week, keeping brains empty and robot jaws oiled. So you thought it was currently going on. Truth is though, "liberal media bias" is a LIE by LIARS.

"Rush Limbaugh ... ultra-conservative editorial comment." The essential failing of Voices-in-the-bubble is illiteracy, being ignorant of the meaning of words. Example: the morning after election day, 1992; Rash Lamebrain: "Bill Clinton does not deserve to be president. Somebody ought to just go shoot ... oh, nevermind, I could get in trouble for what I'm thinking."

Showing NOT "ultra- yaddayadda comment."
Showing TREASON

Example 2: during phony 'impeachment' desecration, the day before Matthew Shepard is torture-murdered for being gay, bound to a fencepost overnight in Wyoming's subzero high chaparral; Lamebrain: "Won't somebody please rid me of the 'Barney Franks' of the world."

Shoot Rash Lamebrain. |bang| not living. How does that sound to you, 'ultra-left commentary'? You are ignorant of what words mean, so save your breath answering the question.

---
The preceding statement-in-premise can legally appear here, and whoever by their own initiative gets on the internet and 'dials up' this blog may arrive to read it. On certain conditions:
1) that they act voluntarily at their own initiative to come to find it -- this Comment is not being transmitted to them, unilaterally, without their participation.
2) that they be literate, and can read. Hate-talk radio programming penetrates minds of pre-schoolers able to understand oral information, without the maturity to read. (The biggest blow -- pun intended -- to Lamebrain's ratings came immediately after he stated "how would you like it if Clinton put his penis in your daughter's mouth;" Lamebrain apologized for days afterward, reading typical faxes: "I babysit my 3- and 4-year-old grandchildren each day with the radio on, while both their parents work. They know what 'penis' and 'mouth' mean. Lamebrain, we will never listen to your programming in this house again, and you should be removed from broadcasting." Remind you, these faxes came from his fans, who Lamebrain betrayed.)

The point here is that the internet is the telephone system, it is NOT broadcast. You have to dial the phone -- literally -- to connect to the party (website) you are calling. Exactly as, you have to dial the phone to talk to your 'friend', who may say "how would you like it if Bush put his penis in your daughter's mouth," and if so, you may hang-up, never call that 'friend' again, enjoy the 'joke' together, or whatever -- but you do not have a case for 'equal time', listening on the phone during THAT call to the 'opposition' position, (whatever that would sound like), because YOU CALLED them, and it is a PRIVATE conversation. (Except for the FBI wiretaps listening in.)

Broadcasting is NOT the telephone. That is why broadcasting MUST HAVE equal time clause, and Fairness Doctrine.

The internet is the telephone system. Private communications. Listen up and learn, or hang up.

My experience with the Fairness Doctrine in operation is that it contributed to the lack of information and debate in the press that led to the current state of affairs where the press sadly is declining. In 1991 the late animal policy scholar,Vicki Hearne, came to Portland on a book tour and lecured at Reed. Major media outlets got press packets, but the stated reason for not covering her was that she criticized the policies of Oregon Humane Society and since no one from there could be available for comment, they wouldn't touch it. From what i have read, this is but one example of how the doctrine concentrates control in favor of the status quo. I say abolish the doctrine all together.

Radio is a bit different than blogs, it costs way more to put content on the radio. Then they have to prove people are actually listening so advertisers will pay. Radio like Air America didnt survive because nobody wanted to listen. If the Fairness Doctrine is to force radio stations to play content nobody wants to hear, then who will pay for the broadcasting? Taxpayers?

The thing that kills me is that without the "Fairness" Doctrine, a station like KXL, that plays constant right-wing radio, (even lunatics like Michael Savage) and yet is able to survive and have some of the best ratings in the nation...in one of the most liberal cities in the nation.

It'd be nice if voters had information by which to vote on media 'regulations,' and massmedia is NOT going to empower people with information against massmedia. Some rants sometimes do. For readers.

"best ratings in the nation" -- compared to what? The May ARB (you're only as good and transient as your last score) diaries placed KOPJ (s.-c. 'Air America') like 4th and KXL 7th (or lower -- look it up) of Top 10, PDX, 'overall' category ages 12-54, day parts (I guess), with a KXL number like 4.5 (posted in Aug at Oregon Media Insiders dotCOM ORG Blog wtf?), and someone in the comments quibbled the true number was "4.6" whatever. #1 had like 6.8, which is mammoth, (El Rey is king, is thread title); and #10 had like 4.0 or 3.5. What?dozen stations are below all that. One is above all that: KOPB has 'informal' numbers like 7.5, highest-rated PBS franchise, uh, I mean, affiliate; 'informal' because ARB does not count public broadcasting (read: non-commercial) stations. Everyone 'knows' KOPB is highest rated station in PDX unrated. It skews all stats, uh, I mean demograph-icks.

And it means nothing. There is either no 2nd contending oddball, or the difference is 3.5 vs 3.3. like, no diff. 1st or 2nd. As a rule of thumb, (you can argue stats against, or just work with it awhile, to think with, and no arguing), 1 'point' is 10.ooo persons in PDX, (maybe 200,ooo in LA,NY). So 3.4 is 34,ooo. A big stadium ballgame has a bigger audience 'ratings' -- seats in the seats.

So suppose for example, (doubtful) KXL has 40,ooo 'listeners'. Supposedly, that many 'different' listeners tuned-in for some 15-minute interval during the 'program' time. You can adjust those amounts as you like, but when framed as 'unique visitors' and 'duration' it starts to sound like websites -- where 40,ooo a day 'click in' for 15 minutes avg., in some websites. Currently, there is a large degree of truth that Bojack's, li'l ol' Jack's pride and joy, has 'bigger ratings' than some piece of KXL, morning drive time, say. Or, maybe 40,ooo hear KXL O'Reilly on the way to work, and then all radios go off and NO,ooo hear LIARS or anything all day -- KXL would still rate 4.0 for that day, in 'day parts.' But Bojack can tell you minute by minute who is 'tuned in' and who leaves. That's not stats, that's facts.

Suppose, again, KXL is 'Top Rated' nationwide. So what? Hate-talk radio must be going down the drain everywhere. KXL has dropped down the PDX 'Top 10' for 8 'books' (2 years) running ... plummeted, is more like it, in 'Variety'-speak -- 'offoB', the opposite of 'Boffo.' The shock-hate fad 'trend' is going flatline, no doubt. You can get a 1.0 rating, 10,ooo 'listeners' to 'tune in' to hear static ... anything ... wherever they left the radio dial ... when they jump in the car going somewhere. LIARS promos 'Top Rated local-originated NorthWest white men ages 35-54' period. Category of 1 contestant.

The 'ratings' mean nothing in sense of social comment, of effect. Content matters. Regardless if 1,ooo or 100,ooo hear some racist LIAR say, "it's open season on liberals, limit 2," (verbatim), it only takes one kook listener, freshly fired from a job, gorked upside the head thinking the radio is the Voice of God, to 'go rightwing wacko' berserk, (a replacement phrase for 'go postal' -- since, in fact, it's been rightwing wackos shooting anonymous persons lately, as the shooters said the radio said to do). And one strike and the station is OUT, like with terrorist acts.

In reality, only about 1,ooo DO listen to LIARS foment treason, uh, I mean disturb the peace, incite civil disorder, public menace repeat offender. And those 1,ooo self-select to convene the worst-wacko fascists, voted most likely to lose in life. Their 'retort' (against 'equal time') is always: If you don't like it, don't listen; choose another channel. In other words, it's a private meeting of 'them,' (in public facilities), the worst-wacko, most psycho mentally out of balance, seeking a clue about life in two words -- that's 'their' capacity.

You don't need no stinking ratings, as a community, to know that you PROHIBIT someone broadcasting sedition and lawlessness, anarchy, against the civil order and public figures. If the anarchists, or totalitarians want to party, fine, get a conference call, get a website, rent a room. But BROADCAST is PROHIBITED. Because it is broadcast. That's why it's not allowed. Racers, drive your cars 100 mph on your own time and property, but NOT ON PUBLIC STEETS. Because it is public, that's why not.

Decent people DO get this. The only sqwackers is the anti-social splinter group screaming bloody murder when the adult majority takes away their franchise. Tough love. Get a clue and get into life. You got a problem with 'social order'? Hey, contribute something better. And your hate ain't it.

---
The 'equal time' clause was only one criterion in the Fairness Doctrine manifesto. And it only was ever really applied (regulating) TV, not radio or Press, or but as a 'pretense' ... pretending to have as much influence as TV. Although, 'Fairness' was enacted before TV started (1950, say), back in radio-heyday, b.1923. The 1934 & '37 Telecommunications Act was when it got up to Congress to "do something" about the new-fangled 'wireless' phenomenon, sweeping the nation. Actually, the burr under the saddle (impetus) was the anti-semitic Catholic priest supremacist Father Coughlin on a 6-station 'network' in the Midwest, broadcasting cheers for Hitler, 1933-38, which got people bothered, and they got Congress bothered, who enacted whatever corporate 'radio sponsors' bribed legislators to enact.

The Act was entering virgin territory, in law, in culture, (in 'organized religion', read: ideology), and in technology: Telecommunications. (As distinct from Telephone and Telegraph.) The '37 Act prudently contained a 50-year sunset clause, for a regulatory 'trial period,' and by doing nothing, the law would expire. During Reagan it came due for re-enactment, with the 'equal time' clause in it, and Reagan's Senate filibustered not to consider the motion. 'Fairness' was NOT repealed by popular consensus; it was suffocated by a vicious rightwing bloc of Senators. Immediately, (1988), out of a 4-year run in the local Sacramento market, Rash Lamebrain started 'syndicating' a network, coast-to-coast, and we were right back where Father Coughlin left off.

But ... 1923 to 1935 or so, ALL radio was FUNDED BY TAXES. Corporate 'sponsors' and 'commercials' was known to be scams and corruptions. 'Spot sales' of advertising time was 'legalized' by bribing Congress. Same way 'illegal' alcohol Prohibition got 'legalized.' In many countries and jurisdictions, today, broadcasting still has NO COMMERCIALS, and is powered by taxes and fees, maybe 'licensing.'

That is the right way to do broadcasting, tax everyone a little bit, and NO COMMERCIALS. Maybe offer a menu of 100 channels, and the tax revenue funds the top 50 people pick, which allows dropping and adding formats as fashion and styles change. With oversight conditions. Mainly, that every taxpayer has some point of contact, and input, to air their own 15-minutes-of-fame Show, (every week?), for whoever wants to -- all public access channels, all the time. Certain ones would give good TV and good radio, and they could 'build a following' and become celebrated. Still, they'd keep it by comparison against public-access newcomers. Or by 'on air' elected term of office.

Maybe 10 bucks a year taxes for Portlanders, for free cable, free radio and TV broadcast. (As distinct from WiFi, telephone, and more.)

The fairness doctrine is censorship and media control implemented by the party in power, make no mistake about it.

One post in the SlashDot forum hits the nail on the head:

"The Fairness Doctrine isn't. All throughout it's history, it's been used by whoever was in power at the time to silence their enemies, or at least quiet them down some. The doctrine is nothing but government nannyism, and its death was too long in coming. For those of you that are so eager to bring it back, think long and hard about that. Sooner or later, someone you don't like is going to get elected, and use it against you."

....course, on the other hand, hearing Lars guest host the Randi Rhodes show might be a real hoot.

The fairness doctrine was killed long ago because it needed to die. There is only one reason the dems want to bring it back. Conservatives are killing them via talk radio and it will shut them up, pure politics at work.

Look, as stated earlier radio stations make their money via advertising dollars. Advertisers research what shows people are listening to and assign their advertising dollars off that. Air America has proved via bankruptcy that liberals don't listen to talk radio like conservatives do.

By pushing through the fairness doctrine it would force radio stations to either air liberal talk radio or scale back on conservative talk radio. Since liberals have shown they don't listen to the radio much, advertising dollars wont be spent for liberal talk shows. In effect that kills conservative talk radio which is the real point of re-introducing the fairness doctrine.

At one time the fairness doctrine kinda made sense. There was a limited number of ways for the public to get information. Today we are in information overload making it a purely political tool.

You all should go back in history to learn why the "fairness doctrine" was put in place. It was a time when the only info source available in cities was a newspaper or two with common ownership (think Oregionian and The Journal). There was also very limited radio and TV owned by the same folks that owned the newspaper.

Now there are multiple radio, TV and newspapers with broad ownership. Throw in the internet and blog and the fairness doctrine is no longer needed. All the libs want to do is silence the loyal opposition.

"The fairness doctrine is censorship and media control implemented by the party in power ... All throughout it's history, it's been used by whoever was in power at the time to silence their enemies."

What "history"? Or gimme 1 single solitary instance, in evidence of your 'revisionist' nonsense. In what you say, you make it obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

"The fairness doctrine was killed long ago because it needed to ..."

1987 is not so "long ago" unless you were born yesterday.

"... liberals have shown they don't listen to the radio much ..."

As long as you can ignore FACTS, or be a LIAR, when Portland 'liberal' KPOJ radio ratings crushed flat 'conservative hate-talk' KXL (non)ratings, in the latest actual measurement of audience, as commands advertisers.

"... go back in history to learn why the "fairness doctrine" ..." -- yeah, like read my up-thread comment -- "... was a time when the only info source available in cities was a newspaper or two ..." -- FALSE! newspapers proliferatedin the 1930s, spreading the 1920s 'tabloid' concoction; don't LIE, just say you don't know -- " ... with common ownership (think Oregionian and The Journal)." -- FALSE! separately owned, and so were a Portland 'black' community newspaper, 'labor' newspaper in the shipyards, [- BTW, bigBigBIG NATIONWIDE General Labor Strike ACTION, 9/11/2008 -- read up on it, get down with it, all work is cancelled, stay home, party -], there're plentiful 'business' financial newspapers, and a dozen besides those, not counting Willamette Week which won the latest Pulitzer Prize (when The zerO did NOT), which sorta makes WW a 'newspaper' wouldn't ya' say? don't LIE, just say you don't know -- "Now there are multiple radio, TV and newspapers with broad ownership ..." -- FALSE! wow, you just keep shovelling stupid on your face -- "Throw in the internet and blog and the fairness doctrine is no longer needed ...." -- the INTERNET is NOT MassMedia as broadcasting IS; (and INTERNET is NOT the Press, which the 'equal time' Fairness NEVER REGULATED, anyway -- it say equal time, get it? the Press doesn't sell time, it sells space); and the exact pOint on-topic is that INTERNET is NOT for Fairness Doctrine 'oversight', and broadcast MassMedia IS where 'Fairness' is the Public ORDER.

INTERNET is 'regulated' as TELEPHONE, such as no obscene calls to your number but you may call for some (also for protest, demonstration, conspiracy, special interests, newsfeeds, and what-you-like); private communication, no 'intercept' unless warrant by Court; uniform and universal telephone access; and certain and sure, NO 'equal time' clause and NO Fairness Doctrine on telephone calls, which means the INTERNET. ('Fairness' is only for broadcast MassMedia, you numbskulls in the affect of MassMind media.)

You'all sound totally brainwashed. I mean, you are way way outside real truth. Probably you are going to always be barren, childless, (just as all the Big Time 'conservative' hate-talkers), from being so clueless. Think about it, mating prospects spot clueless conjugal jokers Right Away ... the extreme right, and isolated far far away.

"please go take your meds" -- PLEASE! STOP making us sick of you. You're likely good people, when you can kick your addiction to a daily hate-shout fix dosage, and detox your system.

I think Tenskwatawa is completely correct . . . the "fairness doctrine" only has ever applied to broadcast mediums (Radio and TV). Newspapers and magazines have always been allowed to have political slant -- sometimes very HEAVY political slant . . . and in many cases conservative.

Broadcast mediums (TV and Radio) came into the picture, and that's when the "Fairness Doctrine" came into play. But since cable TV, and the explosion of 24-hour news, and so many options, there now is political slant like we've never seen before on many sides of the political divide.

One good thing is one can choose to tune in and watch "christian news" if you want (on CBN), or "conservative news" (on Fox) or "liberal-leaning news" (on MSNBC or CNN). so we have choices that may make it less important to have the "fairness docutrine" that really used to apply to the big networks -- the ones the President can call upon to broadcast a message from the Oval Office at any time.

I also agree with some who say that "New Media" doesn't seem to me like news media at all. It's more of an opinion free-for-all . . . kind of like a "Lord of the Flies" mentatility.

Don't get me wrong, I like blogs, and I like giving my opinion too (I'm posting right now). But I don't consider what I'm doing now as "journalism." if I were reporting the facts without the political slant and the opinion comments, then THAT would be reporting news. The internet, and blogs, really seem more suited to the opinion side of things. At least that's where the interaction comes from. And interaction is a way to show advertisers you've made contact with an audience, and BINGO! That's what it's going to be about -- proving you've reached the public, so you can get paid by advertisers on web pages. It's not enough to just have web hits anymore. Advertisers want proof that people are staying longer, and looking around. THAT's when they're going to see the ads.

So if "new media" will replace traditional news (and the "Fairness Doctrine") I'm afraid we're going to be in for a lot more opinionating, and a lot less straight news.

It certainly can. And does. Self-declared political persuasion, being 'leftist' OR being 'rightist,' DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR being BROADCAST.

Talent does.

Or maybe popularly accomplished fame, successfully having written a book, starred in a movie, sang a gold record, sported in the pro's, stood for election or been elected/appointed. Something. Something. Partisan political dogma dropper is NOT popular QUALITY -- NOT any TALENT.

Just as self-declared being 'Baptist' or being 'atheist' DOES NOT DISQUALIFY FOR being RESPECTED, all created equal and uniquely endowed.

Pull the plug on ALL broadcasting based on political TILT as if it was talent -- ALL partisan broadcasting, including PAID political campaign ad air-time. OFF ! KILL IT.

Thom Hartmann sure back-pedaled "but, but, but"-ing when I confronted him on-air to endorse the policy, (Hartmann lying: "we can't ban broadcast content.") LIARS Larson only went batsh!t infantile when I confronted him on-air in the same issue, and hit the 'bleep' button to suppress my words from airing. (LIARS lying: "we can't ban broadcast content" and "it's freedom of Speech." No, LIARS, it is Freedom of the Press and it is prohibited to incite treason and sedition against Domestic Tranquility and the General Welfare ... also prohibited to broadcast 7 forbidden words, whereas personal freedom of Speech -- NOT broadcast -- may say anything. Turn off the mic, say whatever you feel like to whoever will listen to you.)

Ban broadcast political ads and programming, the same as we ban broadcast cigarette ads and programming. Because. We. Can.

Your premise is that upon hearing any political talk radio, be it right or left leaning, we're all going to march off and vote as we're told, or incite treason and sedition against domestic tranquility, perhaps burn and loot as our now unleashed and uncontrollable political zeal takes over our sponge like brains. Our children will have been programmed against their will and out of their control, and will grow up to be mindless drones in the political machine.

Or something like that.

Truth is, I want to hear political talk radio, and I often listen to folks with opinions 180 degrees off from what I believe. Makes me think, makes me question my own beliefs, makes for good conversation when issues get discussed. Taken as a whole, it's another source of information. Like any information, the source has to be considered and the information itself looked at for accuracy and bias, but it's one of many sources so I don't feel like it's the only venue I have to get some editorial content.

And, for sure, I don't want the government limiting political content. The "Fairness Doctrine" isn't and the potential for misuse huge. You and I disagree but that's one element of good debate and conversation.

Frankly, I'm not nearly as paranoid as you are, and feel like I'm capable of taking in information from a number of sources, and making up my own mind.

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269